get_dashboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if dashboard not found), or whether the operation is safe. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavior or parameter usage without becoming verbose. Currently it is efficient but borderline terse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the basic purpose but lacks detail on return values, error states, and usage context. For a simple get tool, this might be acceptable, but the missing information on parameters and alternatives reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has two parameters (dashboard_id, fields) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain what 'fields' accepts (e.g., comma-separated list, specific field names) or how to use it. The schema also includes a default null, but the description fails to clarify behavior when omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (details of a specific dashboard by ID). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_dashboard_by_name, which retrieves a dashboard by name instead of ID. This makes it clear but lacking sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dashboard_by_name or list_dashboards. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or the context for the 'fields' parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.